Advertisement

Eastern Economic Journal

, Volume 44, Issue 2, pp 273–285 | Cite as

Prudence and Different Kinds of Prevention

  • Mario Menegatti
Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper examines the effect of prudence on the optimal choices of advance and contemporaneous prevention in a context where the two kinds of prevention are used together. We show that, under some conditions on the probability of loss occurrence, prudence tends to increase advance prevention and to reduce contemporaneous prevention, while imprudence tends to do the opposite. Further results on the effect of prudence/imprudence on agents’ optimal behavior are provided.

Keywords

prevention prudence self protection advance prevention contemporaneous prevention 

JEL

D81 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Louis Eeckhoudt, Richard Peter, two anonymous referees and the Associate Editor Diego Nocetti for their useful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimers apply.

References

  1. Briys, Eric, and Harris Schlesinger. 1990. Risk Aversion and the Propensities for Self-insurance and Self-protection. Southern Economic Journal, 57: 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chiu, W. Henry. 2005. Degree of Downside Risk Aversion and Self-protection. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 36: 93–101.Google Scholar
  3. Chuang, O-Chia C., Louis Eeckhoudt, Rachel J. Huang, and Larry Y. Tzeng. 2013. Risky Targets and Effort. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 52: 465–468Google Scholar
  4. Courbage, Christophe, Henri Loubergé, and Richard Peter. 2015. Optimal Prevention for Multiple Risks. Journal of Risk and Insurance.Google Scholar
  5. Courbage, Christophe, and Béatrice Rey. 2012. Optimal Prevention and Other Risks in a Two-Period Model. Mathematical Social Sciences, 63: 213–217, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Courbage, Christophe, Béatrice Rey, and Nicolas Treich. 2013. Prevention and Precaution, in Handbook of Insurance, edited by George Dionne. New York: Springer, 185–204.Google Scholar
  7. Crainich, David, Louis Eeckhoudt, and Mario Menegatti. 2016. Changing Risk and Optimal Effort. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 125: 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Denuit Michel M., Louis Eeckhoudt, Liqun Liu, and Jack Meyer. 2016. Tradeoffs for Downside Risk-Averse Decision-Makers and the Self-Protection Decision. Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, 41: 19–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dionne, Georges, and Louis Eeckhoudt. 1985. Self-insurance, Self-protection and Increased Risk Aversion. Economics Letters, 17, 39–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eeckhoudt, Louis, and Christian Gollier. 2005. The Impact of Prudence on Optimal Prevention. Economic Theory, 26: 989–994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Eeckhoudt, Louis, Rachel J. Huang, and Larry Y. Tzeng. 2012. Precautionary Effort: A New Look. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 79: 585–590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Eeckhoudt, Louis, and Harris Schlesinger. 2006. Putting Risk in Its Proper Place. American Economic Review, 96: 280–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ehrlich, Isaac, and Gary S. Becker. 1972. Market Insurance,Self-insurance, and Self-protection. Journal of Political Economy, 80: 623–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hofmann, Annette, and Richard Peter. 2011. Safe Today or Sorry Tomorrow? The Impact of Time-Structure on Optimal Prevention. Munich Risk and Insurance Center, Working Paper 4.Google Scholar
  15. Hofmann, Annette, and Richard Peter. 2015. Multivariate Prevention Decisions: Safe Today or Sorry Tomorrow? Economics Letters, 128: 51–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hofmann, Annette, and Richard Peter. 2016. Self-Insurance, Self-protection, and Saving: On Consumption Smoothing and Risk Management. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 83: 719–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huang Yi-Chieh, Larry Y. Tzeng, and Lin Zhao. 2015. Comparative Ambiguity Aversion and Downside Ambiguity Aversion. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 62: 257–269.Google Scholar
  18. Huang, Rachel J. 2012. Ambiguity Aversion, Higher-Order Risk Attitude and Optimal Effort. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 50: 338–345.Google Scholar
  19. Julien Bruno, Salanié Bernard, and Francois Salanié. 1999. Should More Risk-Averse Agents Exert More Effort? Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 24: 19–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Menegatti, Mario. 2007. A new interpretation for the precautionary saving motive: a note. Journal of Economics, 92: 275-280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Menegatti, Mario. 2009. Optimal Prevention and Prudence in a Two-Period Model. Mathematical Social Sciences, 58: 393–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Menegatti, Mario. 2012. New Results on Optimal Prevention of Risk Averse Agents. Economics Bulletin, 32: 2166–2173.Google Scholar
  23. Menegatti, Mario. 2014a. Optimal Choice on Prevention and Cure: A New Economic Analysis. European Journal of Health Economics, 15: 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Menegatti, Mario. 2014b. New Results on the Relationship Among Risk Aversion, Prudence and Temperance. European Journal of Operational Research, 232: 613–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Menegatti, Mario, and Filippo Rebessi. 2011. On the substitution between prevention and saving. Mathematical Social Sciences, 62: 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nocetti, Diego. 2015. Robust Comparative Statics of Risk Changes. Management Science, 62: 1381–1392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Read, Daniel, George Loewenstein, and Matthew Rabin. 1999. Choice bracketing. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 19: 171–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang, Jiangli, and Jingyuan Li. 2015. Precautionary Effort: Another Trait for Prudence. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 82: 977–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wang, Hongxia, Jiangli J. Wang, Jingyuan Li, and Xinping Xia. 2015. Precautionary paying for stochastic improvements under background risks. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 64: 180–185.Google Scholar
  30. Xue, Minggao, and Wen Cheng. 2013. Background risk, bivariate risk attitudes, and optimal prevention. Mathematical Social Sciences, 66: 390–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© EEA 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di EconomiaUniversitá di ParmaParmaItaly

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options